Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.

I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.

I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.

Yeah mate you go bury your head in the sand it will make you feel better, when you pull your head back out the NuEnterprise will still be as big as the Enterprise D (definitely longer) and the Vengeance will still be as big as a Romulan Warbird.

I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.

Again I'll say... the size of the ship has NOTHING to do with the story being told. If the acting isn't good enough for you, fine. You hated the plot? Coolcoolcool. Directing not your cup of java? Kudos to you.

But where's the logic in bashing a movie, just because you think the ships to big?

Hell, when you think about all the room you'd need to house a generator that could create enough energy to warp space-time, and have 400 people living on it, have enough room to house, maintain and launch several shuttles capable of housing 7 people each, room for transporters, sensors, sciencelabs, medical facilities, recreational facilities, arboritum and God knows what else for when the plot needed it, the original Enterprise was way to small.

I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.

The bridge and lobby ALONE prove 725m is the only size the ship can ever possibly be.

EDITED TO ADD: Even the Haynes Enterprise manual states that the alternate reality Enterprise is significantly larger than the version Kirk Prime commanded.

That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.

I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.

The bridge and lobby ALONE prove 725m is the only size the ship can ever possibly be.

EDITED TO ADD: Even the Haynes Enterprise manual states that the alternate reality Enterprise is significantly larger than the version Kirk Prime commanded.

That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.

No, you failed by actually NOT believing something that the designers of the friggin ship have actually stated to be true, i.e. the size of the ship. There's a word for that: denial.

That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.

Look at the bridge and lobby. Thats irrefutable evidence, the sets and the Enterprise at their correct sizes. They would never fit at any smaller size. And you say I've failed? Tell me how they could both fit on a 366m ship, with all those decks and the domes top and bottom - and fit a 50-foot wide bridge in front!

That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.

As opposed to what you are doing which is... what? Cool it with the hostility, first of all, and if you're going to argue a point of view, you should back it up with some evidence instead of just invective.

__________________'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'

Just my weigh in... The creators clearly made the point to ensure the scaling was supersized. And while I don't personally like the ship, I don't have any issue with it because it's a new timeline/universe... So in a way, there's nothing more to compare it to than comparing new Kirk's blue eyes to original Kirk's brown eyes. It's just a new universe for the creators to play around in.

And we do it all the time when we design a new ship or create a new story for the original or new characters.

I can pick apart any movie, but if it's enjoyable, I can overlook the what I would consider to be BS IF the movie was bad.

And we all don't have to agree with each other to discuss what we care about. The ship is as much a character now as it was since I was a kid. This one to me just happens to be fat and ugly, but meh, I liked the movies and wasn't going to let that fugly bastard ruin it for me.